Category Archives: No one wants to take your guns

Nobody is going to take your guns

Posted on by

I couldn’t begin to count the number of times I’ve been told either directly or indirectly by anti-gun activists and politicians that nobody is going to take guns away from U.S. citizens. Frequently if you listen to them for another 30 seconds they will tell you the guns they plan to ban next. When confronted with this discrepancy they will tell you what they really meant was nobody was going to take all the guns away. And there is no slippery slope.

Yeah. That really puts me at ease.

I guess I should ignore little things like this police chief saying Americans can be completely disarmed within a generation.

Or political pundits outlining How to Ban Guns:

  1. The very first thing we need is a national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them… I think about 6 months should be enough time.
  2. Make private sales illegal.
  3. Remember those ATF form 4473s? … So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry.
  4. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations.
  5. An immediate, national ban on concealed carry.
  6. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer.
  7. I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don’t want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member.

If you read the fine print you will find he has zero regard for the Fourth Amendment as well as the Second. Neither are even identified as a speed bump in his grand plan.

The guy is clearly delusional as he apparently expects gun owners will willingly cooperate with the gun registration if they “make it super easy to do.”

And if his grand plan, with him given credit for it, were to be accepted and implementation began it’s unlikely his kids would be shot. I’m pretty certain all his worries would be very short lived. They would be very intense, but short lived.

Quote of the day—Donald Kaul

Posted on by

Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures.

Donald Kaul
December 29, 2012
Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns
[I think I owe a H/T to some blogger but I lost that info. Sorry about that.

In addition to being violently opposed to the 2nd Amendment he is willing to (have someone else) use violence against people exercising their First Amendment rights (freedom of association in this case) and the Fifth Amendment (due process).

Suggestion to Kaul: You should plan on take point on those plans of yours because that would probably result in a less painful end than waiting around for someone else’s point to find you.

Oh, and another thing. The “my cold dead hands” thing went out in the mid-90’s although Charlton Heston did use a few times after that. It was replaced with, “When you reanimate your cold, dead, hands.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Wallace Carroll

Posted on by

Can’t we Americans here at home do something to lift the gun terror from our schools, playgrounds, parking lots, malls, post offices, housing projects, highways and the grim reaches of our cities where the police must risk their lives to uphold the law?

Of course we can. What we have to do now is to free ourselves from one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century.

This mighty country stands paralyzed in the face of an ever-spreading plague of guns. This national calamity we owe to the leaders of the National Rifle Association in Washington. With a tenacity and ferocity worthy of a better cause, they have fought every proposal, however moderate, to bring the menace under control.

In this endeavor, their principal weapon has been the Second Amendment to the Constitution — or, rather, their version of the Second Amendment.

That amendment, they have insisted, gives everyone an absolute constitutional right to have every kind of firearm. Brandishing that “right,” spending millions in lobbying and legal maneuvers and threatening doom to politicians who would oppose them, they have killed or stalled gun control initiatives in Congress, state legislatures and city governments.

At last, however, the nation is on the move.

…

Now the great Second Amendment hoax can be nailed once and for all if the rank-and-file of the NRA and other responsible citizens will master one simple truth: The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means. It does not mean what the NRA leaders have been telling the nation all these years.

Wallace Carroll
July 4, 1993
To End the Gun Terror, End the Second Amendment Hoax
[Those were the dark days of gun rights activism. That was the attitude nearly everywhere in the media and many of the politicians. Guns were a terror, a plague, a menace, and a national calamity. The standard view of the Second Amendment was a hoax, a lie, and a fraud.

I agree with one thing he said. The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means.

The problem for Mr. Carroll is that he was, probably deliberately, misreading the Miller decision and ignoring the Cruikshank decision. The Heller decision made things much more difficult for people like Carroll to distort. The question is now that the courts have agreed with the NRA on the meaning of the Second Amendment does Carroll still insist that the meaning of the Second Amendment is what the courts say it is? Or does he now insist that the Supreme Court has perpetuated a fraud on the American people as well?

Or does Carroll now admit it was he that was the hoaxer or at least the one that fell for a fraud?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kristin Goss

Posted on by

In the late 1980s and into the mid-1990s, the framing of the gun control debate continued to revolve mainly around criminal justice. But this time the “bad hands” and “bad guns” had changed. The target of gun control efforts became the urban gang and the “assault weapons” that gang members used. The new focus on assault weapons gain clarity after Patrick Purdy used an AK-47 to kill five children at a Stockton, California, elementary school playground in January 1989. In that year the Nation Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed.

Kristin Goss
Disarmed: the missing movement for gun control in America, see the actual text in a preview of the book on page 112.
Published November 17, 2008
[This is supporting evidence to refute those that claim CSGV does has not advocated banning handguns for more than 20 years. See also the Wikipedia article on CSGV.

There is more (posted March 29, 2002) evidence at (posted November 1, 2003) these web pages which all (posted January 21, 2002) claim (posted July 16, 2003):

CSGV supports a ban on the importation, manufacture, sale and transfer of handguns and assault weapons, with reasonable exceptions for police, military, security personnel, gun clubs, and antique and collectable firearms stored in inoperable condition.

Also of interest is the domain gunfree.org (created 19-Feb-1997) is an alias for csgv.org (created 09-Jul-1999) and is used as the reference for a number of those pages. Hence any reference to either gunfree.org or csgv.org must have been created since those domains were registered. Since both domains were created in the last 15 years claims that CSGV has not advocated banning handguns for over 20 years must be considered false.

One must also ask the question, “What would be the objective of an organization who uses the domain name of GunFree.org?” My hypothesis would be that they wish to ban all guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

Give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.

Real gun control will take courage. In the long run, half-measures and compromises only sacrifice lives.

Josh Sugarmann
1999
Seattle and Honolulu shootings more reasons to regulate guns
[This is from the dark days of gun owner rights activism.

Sugarmann goes through regulatory proposals such as licensing, registration, expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines. He then concludes a complete ban is the only rational conclusion.

I grudgingly admire Sugarmann for his genius in regards to “assault weapons” and his honesty in saying the endgame must be, always has been, and always will be a complete ban.—Joe]

The dark ages

Posted on by

It’s sort of a meme with Tamara leading the way followed by Say Uncle and Sebastian.

Tamara is correct as far as she goes but doesn’t get into how dark things were on the political side. For a more complete story read my “From the archives” tagged posts (ignore the post with the picture of the beautiful woman). Here are some samples:

I think — you know, we can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles…

Bill Clinton
March 1, 1993

And we should — then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.

Bill Clinton
October 1, 1993

Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.

U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden
November 18, 1993

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
November 18, 1993

We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!. We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!

U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer
November 30, 1993

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.

Diane Feinstein
February 5, 1995

If this is a topic of serious interest then you must read The Gun Rights War for the view from the trenches during those days and before. It was very clear that the dark ages were upon us. The lies and broken agreements of our opponents were ignored by the general public. The forces of evil merely cackled and thought us fools to believe the truth and principles would be sufficient to slow let alone stop or reverse them.

Quote of the day—Janet Reno

Posted on by

The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.

Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General during the Clinton administration
1991
[Ms. Reno was mistaken. Had such a law been passed there would have been a great deal more “crime” than she would have imagined or been able to handle.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles Krauthammer

Posted on by

The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of “assault weapons” will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America’s home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-enabling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these “assault weapons,” were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.

…

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate.

Charles Krauthammer
April 5, 1996
Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet
Originally in The Washington Post on April 5 1996. The above link is in the Seattle Times from April 8, 1996.
[See also another QOTD extracted from this article.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles Krauthammer

Posted on by

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer
April 5, 1996
Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet
Originally in The Washington Post on April 5. The above link is in the Seattle Times from April 8, 1996.
[Via email from Ry who said, “Lots of qotd material here”. This was like saying, “Nukes make lots of dust.”

This was part of the overreaching the anti-gun people did in the mid and late 1990s. They were on a roll in September 1994 and thought they were unstoppable and openly announced their intentions. They thought there were no obstacles. They thought at most there were just speed bumps causing them to slow down on their way to total domination. And they were wrong.—Joe]

Japete IS lying about this

Posted on by

If you recall a few days ago I defended Joan Peterson (aka japete) against a charge of lying. I still believe I was correct; the best explanation for the available data on that topic was that it was a mental defect rather than a willful lie.

Today I present evidence that she is willingly and knowingly lying about something else.

If you read her blog you will find many instances where she claims or implies she and her organizations don’t wish to ban firearms. Here are  some examples:

Also note that Ms. Peterson acknowledges she is on the Brady Campaign board of directors.

I have often given the Brady Campaign a pass in regards to errors and old material on their website. I know I have lots of out of date material on my websites and I have changed my mind about things but not bother to take down the old position. With all the material from the Brady Campaign saying “total bans are off the table” you might take that to mean they are interested in banning firearms anymore. This is not true.

You need to watch their wording very carefully to notice that since the Heller decision they say they are not advocating a “total ban on handguns”. One must presume that a partial ban would be quite agreeable with them. And one can be certain they are still in favor of an “assault weapon” ban:

Boxer supports California’s ban on assault weapons and the revival of a similar law at the federal level. Fiorina has criticized the federal law’s definition of assault weapons as “extremely arbitrary” and emphasizes other ways of combating gun crimes, none of which is a substitute for a ban. She also believes that travelers on the federal government’s no-fly list should be allowed to own firearms.

We couldn’t agree more with the Times on this one.

Learn more about assault weapons and terror gap, and visit our elections page.

And from their position web page on “assault weapons” linked to in the previous quote:

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts.

PROBLEM: The federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in the fall of 2004.

THE THREAT: Allowing easy access to highly lethal, military-style weapons by dangerous people, like terrorists and felons, threatens the safety of our police officers, families and communities.

URGENCY: Since the ban expired, police chiefs across the country report increases in assault weapons used in crime and used against them.

SOLUTION: Congress must pass strong, effective legislation to ban all military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high capacity ammunition magazines. In the short-term, more states must pass their own laws to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

As a board member Ms. Peterson had to know of the Brady Campaign position on “assault weapons”. I therefore have to apologize for being critical of all the bloggers and commenters who said Joan Peterson was lying.

Quote of the day–Neal Knox

Posted on by

When the ‘reasonable’ Brady Bill was pending, we told the world that radical unreasonable gun laws were waiting in the wings.

We were called paranoid, at best, and liars, at worst–by HCI, Congress, the news media and even some of our fellow gun owners.

Yesterday, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), Rep. Charles Schumer and Handgun Control, Inc. proved us right by introducing their ‘comprehensive gun control’ package, H.R. 3932/S. 1886. It is European-style total people control.

It has every provision on the anti-gunners’ wish list short of a total handgun ban. They’re satisfied, for now, with a ban on merely some handguns–for it creates the total registration and licensing system necessary to make an eventual confiscation law work.

The same day Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen announced that they were using the ‘Destructive Devices’ section of the 1968 Gun Control Act to put the ‘non-sporting’ Streetsweeper, Striker and USAS-12 shotguns under the same registration and $200 transfer tax applicable to machine guns under the National Firearms Act.

Neal Knox
March 3, 1994
HCI ‘Kitchen Sink’ Filed
From The Gun Rights War, page 203.
[When someone, like Half-Truth Henigan, from the Brady Campaign (formerly HCI) says there is no “slippery slope” (see chapter three in Henigan book Lethal Logic) remind them of 1994 and what they helped introduce back then.

When some politician tells you the law they are proposing won’t be pushed to the limits and beyond remind them the Treasury Secretary declared some 12-gauge shotguns ‘Destructive Devices’ putting them in the same category as RPGs, Claymore mines, and Bazookas.

And, as I have said before about this book, you shouldn’t read it just before trying to go to sleep. There will be way too much adrenaline in your system for the next few hours.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

In 1981 Morton Grove became the first American community to ban the sale and private possession of handguns. The law led to court challenges by the NRA on both the federal and state level, where it was found to be constitutional. The Morton Grove ordinance and subsequent court cases have stood as concrete proof that American communities have the right to ban handguns and that such laws are constitutional.

 

Violence Policy Center
March 22, 1995
Historic Morton Grove, Illinois Handgun Ban May Be Overturned as Result of National Rifle Association-Backed Gun Law Preemption Campaign
[That “concrete” was made of wistful thinking and lies. It’s time for the VPC to admit defeat and close up shop.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Diane Feinstein

Posted on by

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.

Diane Feinstein
February 5, 1995
CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes
[Don’t forget this. She and many other Democrats have been very consistent on this. This is one of their core principles. All they lack is the votes to do it.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Woody Bass

Posted on by

I am not going to hide how much guns disgust me. I think they are one of the, if not THE, most vile contraptions on earth.

To give you an idea how much, I wrote three papers in college on guns and gun control in one semester. I cannot begin to tell you how many extremely heated discussions I’ve had with friends and family about guns.

While I strive to understand how anyone can think that any one person should hold that much power – the ability to intimidate and/or take someone’s life with a gun. I can’t deny an individuals constitutional right to bear arms, no matter how painful it may be for me to accept.

But as far as I am concerned, no one needs a gun at all. Not you, certainly not me. Not good people. Not bad people.

The general public has no reason to own firearms such as semi-automatic guns or assault rifles and should be completely banned and destroyed, along with all the other types of guns (as far as I am concerned).

There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.

Don’t try the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument with me. I really despise that saying. Power changes people and guns provide more power than any one individual was meant to have.

Woody Bass
February 4, 2007
Are guns too accessible?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[Interesting argument. I don’t think I have heard that one before in relation to gun ownership, “power changes people and people weren’t meant to have that much power”. It’s sort of a “it’s not natural” type of argument. My favorite response to that is, “You’re right, if people were meant to run around without clothes we would have been born that way.” Other possible arguments in this case could made be against cars, knives, clubs, antibiotics, and computers. Even the Amish could be made out to be “too powerful” with the right argument.

It’s also interesting that he “despises that saying” but doesn’t refute it.

He’s got mental problems.

I didn’t get into it with him. I just left a comment with Just One Question for him and let it go at that.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Carol Solnom

Posted on by

I hate guns. In today’s society there is no need for the average citizen to own or carry a gun except to protect yourself from those who do carry guns and intend to use them in a crime. Oh, wait! I just contradicted myself. No. I just pointed out the vicious circle created by gun advocates. They say, “Guns don’t kill, people kill.” I’d say you’re correct. But the government and law enforcement have done a lousy job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who kill, and longer jail sentences are not the answer because that occurs after a crime has been committed.

Tighter gun control? I’ll go so far as to say ban guns. That’s the only way.

Carol Solnom
There’s no need for most to carry a gun
January 9, 2007
The Enquirer
[ Putting prostitutes in jail after they commit the crime is not the answer. We need to put chastity belts on all women except when under strict police supervision.

At least Ms. Solnom admits her hate. Such an admission is the first step to recovery.

Banning guns didn’t make people in the U.K., Canada, or Australia safer. It didn’t make people in Washington D.C. or Chicago safer. I have Just One Question for Ms. Solnom.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Senator Howard Metzenbaum

Posted on by

I don’t care about crime,  I just want to get the guns.  No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals  . . .  we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns. Until we can ban all of the firearms,  then we might as well ban none.

Senator Howard Metzenbaum
[Just so you know what most in the gun-rights movement have discovered after only a modest amount of research. It’s not crime control that drives the people that want to ban guns.–Joe]

Update: Due to interest in an accurate citation of this quote I went looking some more. I looked yesterday but wasn’t able to find anything satisfactory. Here are some hints:

If I were to spend more time on this I would look for transcripts of the debate on the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. But I don’t really have the time.

Quote of the day–Michael Dukakis

Posted on by

I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.

Michael Dukakis
Then governor of Massachusetts, 1986
[Todays QOTD was inspired by this post from Say Uncle.–Joe]

If you repeat a lie often enough

Posted on by

Via Alphecca and Say Uncle this Washington Post editorial
repeats a lie from a previous editorial.  I sometimes wonder if
they repeat these lies on purpose or if they are just
ignorant/careless/stupid:

As writer Jenny Price noted in a Dec. 25 op-ed in The Post, only 160 of
the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year are employed in
legitimate self-defense; guns in the home are used seven times more
often for homicide than for self-defense.

I corrected Ms. Price in my previous post.  No need to do it again.  This editorial goes on to the expected conclusion.

Political long shot that it may be, a national ban
on the general manufacture, sale and ownership of handguns ought be
enacted. It would not pacify kids or adults with violent tendencies,
and it might not curb general criminal activity markedly. But it might
well save thousands of lives. Handgun exceptions could be made for
federal, state and local law enforcement and military agencies;
collectors of antique firearms; federally licensed handgun sporting
clubs with certain safety procedures; security guard services; and
licensed dealers, importers or manufacturers that are determined to be
meeting those needs.
Such a bill was proposed more than a decade ago by Sen. John Chafee
(R-R.I.), who has since died. “I hear people say it’s a radical
proposal,” he said then. “Well, I think to have the current situation
is radical. No other country has anything like it.” He described
slaughter by handguns as killing in record numbers, threatening
education and pushing the high costs of education even higher. So
what’s new today?

I’ll answer that question.  The data is even more
overwhelming than it was a decade ago–weapon restrictions do not save lives.  They
divert resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

Now, editors at the Washington Post, answer Just One Question.

Quote of the day–The Gun Guys

Posted on by

What we really need to pass are laws that act before the crime has taken place– stop dealers from selling weapons without consequence to criminals. Outlaw weapons that have no civilian needs, like assault weapons or the .50 caliber sniper rifle. Shut down the newspaper and gun show loopholes. Those laws are the ones that will prevent violence. You can lock up all the criminals you want, but that won’t stop crime, because everyone we know in jail committed their crime before they got there.

The Gun Guys
January 13, 2006
[Excellent thinking.  We can also prevent drunk driving by banning alcohol, reckless driving by banning cars, rape by castrating all men, prostitution by…–Joe]

More anti-gun organizations

Posted on by

I ran across a couple new (to me) anti-gun web sites today.

I haven’t really looked over either of them very well.  They are mental cases just from the names of the organizations. The first thing I saw on Handgun-free America was this screed on “assault weapons” which confirms my diagnosis:

These weapons, which are designed to spray bullets while shooting from the hip, are built to kill large numbers of human beings as quickly and efficiently as possible.

…

Plain and simple, these guns are used to commit crimes by criminals and terrorists.  While the NRA claims that assault weapons have never been used in crime, they are simply lying.

[heavy sigh]

The NRA has never claimed anything like that.  They have claimed they are rarely used in crime–which is true.  And we don’t really need to get into the “spray bullets while shooting from the hip” portion do we?  The guns have all have sights on them!  And I’m nearly certain there are more rounds fired from “assault weapons” at the Boomershoot each year than there are in criminal acts.  Here are some pictures of the more common uses for “assault weapons” (click on the pictures for the video):


No video available for this one.

That should put the “Handgun-Free America” people at ease, don’t you think?